Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 672
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?Page 28 of 32    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)

Being off work impacts one's career; whether it's a death knell or barely noticeable depends on a lot of factors. If the working parent benefits from having the children, as well as financially and career-wise, from the non-working parents career sacrifice (large or small), why shouldn't that be taken into consideration if the marriage ends?


In Canada, everyone who works contributes to a government pension plan. Those who don't work, work less or have fewer earnings get less payout at the end of their working life. Their future earnings are negatively impacted, and can never be made up.
That is pretty much how it is here in the US...our government pension plan is based on the hours one spends in the workplace, one's earnings,etc. If one chooses to take a few years off to tend babies/toddlers/pre-school children,or only work part-time that is going to be reflected in a lower pension.

I think that it is interesting here that the ones who are calling BS the loudest on the idea of a parent suspending career to nurture children are
1.Male
2.Appear to have extremely flexible work schedule(nothing wrong with that-some manner of "working at home",flex-time, owning ones'own business can lend itself well to combining work and family.)
3. Some of the more ferocious arguers against asset division in divorce do not appear to have been married, nor do they have children. Their occupations may not have allowed them much exposure to working parents,especially mothers, of babies and small children.



While I never was a parent, I worked with many working parents.
I was raised by working parents...in fact, as the eldest, I had a BOATLOAD of ad hoc parenting experience-particularly when my parents worked opposite shifts. Make no mistake, we were not "neglected" or put at risk by not having some kind of adult assistance nearby.We all seem to have turned out OK-nobody's in jail, divorced, institutionalized-all but myself are parents. All of us contribute to society,pay taxes etc.
But from my perspective I believe I can make a statement about working parents-when both parents are away from home and family 8-10 hrs a day, SOMEBODY has to step in and take up some of the slack at home-whether it is hired help, extended family,older children...I think that if I had some figures on what my folks actually paid out for sitters/housekeeping help, it would be be quite a chunk of change! Believe me, in many situations, having both parents of infants and small children working full-time is not nearly as easy as some here seem to think, Remember, we are not just talking about white collar workers, professionals or technical/skilled personnel here-many working mothers and fathers are punching a time clock, standing on their feet behind a checkout counter or on an assembly line, stocking shelves,waiting tables, helping professionals care for the sick and the elderly, helping teachers or doing support work for the education system,are at a workbench assembling consumer and business goods.Some of them may be getting up at like 4AM to make sure everything is ready for the babysitter-or to transport either babysitter or kids so that child care is covered.

So those who are presuming that it is some kind of "piece of cake", for both parents of young children to work outside the home, may have had rather limited exposure to the REAL world.

Again, reading this thread, I'm again struck by the thought that divorce/asset division DOES need an overhaul.
A divorcing couple should have all their assets and their children confiscated by the STATE. Then both of them can get a new start, and since both have NOTHING,its equal,right?


If the working parent benefits from having the children, as well as financially and career-wise, from the non-working parents career sacrifice (large or small), why shouldn't that be taken into consideration if the marriage ends?

If some here would actually recognize that, instead of miscomprehending that it is a device for women to get compensated for having children SHE wanted,or a means for a woman to avoid working for a living,it would make sense. There seems to be an undercurrent of resentment against women here that is producing a distortion of perception. Granted, at this time, it is still the most likely scenario that it will be the mother who takes time from a paid occupation to nurture children- is that the cause of the resentment, or the result???
OF COURSE having children should be a mutually agreeable decision and well planned for in advance. If a couple can't get on the same page about having-or not having-kids, then that couplehood needs to come to an end before resentment or trickery have a chance to set in.
If a man feels that his wife has forced fatherhood on him, he should immediately file for divorce before further damage is done. He may still have to contribute to the support of that child, but he won't spend years accumulating assets(while the marriage accumulates resentments) that will have to be divided wit the the evil witch who forced him into fatherhood as a means of evading having to WORK for a living.

Nah, I'm going back to divorce=surrender of all assets AND children to the state. Both come out of the failed marriage with nothing.
Hey, we punish people for failing at other things, don't we? People who don't do their jobs well get terminated, people who fail to pay their mortgage or car payment get those things taken away,right? So lets make marriage failure a LOSE-LOSE proposition for both parties.
Cindy O
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 673
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 10:09:32 AM

If one is strictly counting finances...BOTH adults lose out financially when they decide to have children.

Both adults also lose out when divorce happens, even if everybody leaves with what they came in with, their income was at par, there are no children, and whatever they gained mutually is split 50/50. Marriage (usually) benefits both partners financially to some degree; dissolution of that marriage (usually) hurts both partners to some degree.

It's very expensive supporting another adult and 1+children through to adulthood. I know a little bit..and a little bit only about this as I supported an able-bodied adult who chose not to work and helped with the costs of his child.

Yes it is, and for many spousal or child support, savings and retirement income are completely irrelevant; they are barely making it from payday to payday. In a perfect world, everybody would have a job that pays well enough to adequately support themselves and their children, and everybody would think and plan ahead prior to marriage/children. But that's not real life, and unlikely it ever will be - and even the best laid plans can go awry, putting someone in the position of being unable to support themselves, let alone anyone else. There has to be some recognition of what constitutes reality for most people, not what we (personally) would LIKE it to be.

I certainly didn't get further ahead in my career by continuing to work while supporting my family.

But did you get farther ahead then if you'd quit for a few years to raise a child, while your partner continued to work?
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 674
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 10:23:19 AM

He also felt the ex-husband had gone to considerable length to deceive both the ex-wife and the court about his actual income (6 figures) in order to avoid previous spousal and child support orders, so perhaps that had something to do with it.


See, that's just it though. If a person makes a 6 figure income, they are somehow expected to base payments on that 6 figure income, both with respect to spousal support (where it's allowed) and child support.

Should a person, because they happen to be the one who either has had the education, intelligence, or good fortune to land a job that creates that income, be expected to provide much more than a person who makes an average income? For instance, my ex made roughly three times the amount that I did. Just because he did, does that mean that I should have expected to be topped up in the way of spousal support just so I could wind up with an income that equalled his after topping me up?...or to put it another way, be supported in a manner in which I had been accustomed for 30 years (even though I worked for a total of approximately 20 of those years, albeit the one with the lesser income)? As far as I'm concerned, that's not fair - it's his money because he's the one earning it and I was able to survive quite nicely on my own. The reason I was able to survive on my own was because I didn't relish the idea of ever having to be faced with any potential outcomes of his death, illness or divorce (which was the least likely scenario I envisioned but which was the one that came to pass) without being able to stand on my own two feet. We didn't even think of having kids until our house was paid for in full in order to make the burden less difficult for one individual financially or the family as a whole. I was out of the work force for 11 years while looking after the house and the children and yet I was able to enter it again working from home and still see to everyone's needs albeit to a lesser degree, but by then, the degree of parental reliance wasn't the same either. If my kids were of the age that support was required for them in order to be fed, clothed, housed and educated and if it was decided they were to live with only one parent, then a fair amount, depending on each individual's income, could be mathematically forumlated...and that doesn't mean a percentage of one's total income but, rather, a percentage based on not creating a hardship to one parent over the other. When I see child support (or spousal support) in outrageous amounts, it makes me want to gag. What child requires some of these outrageous amounts you see being ordered by the courts in order to survive just because a parent earns a huge amount? The child's right is to be seen to in such a manner that they are comfortable, not fricking spoiled and then grow up to perpetuate the notion that it's a right to go through life with their hand out at the expense of others, whether it be a parent or spouse.
 kari135
Joined: 9/1/2009
Msg: 675
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 10:48:49 AM
I don’t know where some of the men posting here get the idea that taking care of children is a piece of cake. Children, especially babies, toddlers, and preschoolers, take an incredible amount of work. Being a single working mother with just one preschooler is expensive, just for the daycare alone, and I had two of them. Not only does the mother have to do the job they are paid to do and do it well, they then get to go home and do all of the cooking, cleaning, etc, and still make time for the children.

I did this, sometimes working 2 or more jobs, and it is so NOT a piece of cake! I’ve had to take jobs I didn’t like and wasn’t particularly suited to for the fringe benefits, i.e., health insurance. There were a couple years that it cost me more for child care than I earned at my primary job, and I had to have a second part time job to provide the basic costs of living. After several years of that, I was pretty much locked in to a job type I didn’t like and didn’t want. But I was fortunate in that their father was willing to do whatever he could to help by taking care of them when possible (but he was fairly rare in that) and I had some friends who were also willing to help. Many women don’t have that kind of communal support, and they do end up on welfare of one kind or another.

I’ve also known some men who, after getting divorced and having child support ordered, moved out of state and got around the child support by simply never having a job that involved a paycheck. They’d only work for cash, because they “weren’t gonna pay for that ****’s partying.” The ‘****’ - who never partied in the first place - ended up going on welfare and the child(ren) knew why. Then once the child was an adult, Daddy Dearest couldn’t understand why Junior wasn’t interested in getting to know him. Growing up in the projects on welfare doesn’t lead to warm and fuzzy feelings.
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 676
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 10:49:50 AM

Should a person, because they happen to be the one who either has had the education, intelligence, or good fortune to land a job that creates that income, be expected to provide much more than a person who makes an average income?

I didn't say I agreed with the amount, but the reasons behind it were worth thinking about it. I didn't mention, either, that while wifey stayed at home she also took care of some of the bookkeeping/admin stuff of the company that hubby owned; no mention was made of compensation for this. When the marriage split up, hubby hired his new girlfriend to do that job, and paid her a salary that was more than her training, skills and abilities warranted (according to two witnesses at the trial, one each for husband and wife).


As far as I'm concerned, that's not fair - it's his money because he's the one earning it and I was able to survive quite nicely on my own.

If he had taken one-half of those years off to raise kids, while you went to work, would he have been as far ahead?


I was out of the work force for 11 years while looking after the house and the children and yet I was able to enter it again working from home and still see to everyone's needs albeit to a lesser degree,

If you hadn't been out of the workforce for 11 years, would your total life-time earnings have been more? Why was it you who took the reduced future income in order to have kids? Why didn't he, at least for some portion of that time? Why did he get the kids, and a loving, devoted caretaker for them, and a full career with all attendant financial benefit - and you didn't?

I haven't said a non-working spouse couldn't get back into the workforce, couldn't work part time, couldn't upgrade skills or any number of other things to actively mitigate the effect being out of work would have on his/her skills - I think they certainly should do something. Nor have I said the working spouse should somehow top up the non-working parent to an equal level, or support them in some extravagant style for the rest of their days, because of a decision that they both made. That would be equally unfair; it was a decision BOTH made, and the non-working parent also needs to be aware that they will have to sacrifice financially not just now, but likely for the rest of their working life.

What I am saying is that if BOTH parents want kids and BOTH parents think it's a benefit for the kids to have a stay-at-home parent, then why does only ONE parent have to deal with the extended financial impact even after the marriage ends, while the other parent does not? Why shouldn't that financial impact be considered when deciding on asset split or some kind of spousal support?
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 677
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 10:59:58 AM

As for the man I supported in the past 10 years....I truely didn't come out further ahead as he cleared out all the accounts and sold off all the sound gear behind my back leaving me to pay the fortune still owing on it as it was all in my name. Took me a while to clear that all up.

I'm sorry that this happened to you; it is true that lazy, selfish people are not limited to any particular gender.


So nope....no further ahead.
Although, I do see what you are trying to say, and that my situation is not the norm...I would hope.

Well, I hope your situation isn't the norm either, for men or women! And I appreciate that you understand my point. Emotionally I really dislike the idea of spousal support, at least in amounts and/or periods of time that hinder someone from becoming self-sufficient. I think there are some situations in which some limited help can be appropriate and fair and the situation of one parent leaving work to care for a couple's children can be one of them.
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 678
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 11:45:51 AM
If he had taken one-half of those years off to raise kids, while you went to work, would he have been as far ahead?

We would be equally in the same position. The household would have still been maintained, payments made, children fed, clothed and educated. We'd all be working under a state of lesser income for those 6 months. It would be a trade off but more importantly one that was mutually agreed to, not an expectation that one person was more responsible than the other or that one needed to compensate the other for having agreed to that 6 month situation. Not to mention the fact that there is paid parental leave here and that you go back to the same/similar occupation with the same company, based on your training and experience, as you did when you left the job.


If you hadn't been out of the workforce for 11 years, would your total life-time earnings have been more? Why was it you who took the reduced future income in order to have kids? Why didn't he, at least for some portion of that time? Why did he get the kids, and a loving, devoted caretaker for them, and a full career with all attendant financial benefit - and you didn't?

If my lifetime earnings had been more, I would also have had more expenses in the way of child care, as would he have, which would reduce both incomes. I had the benefit of not having to pay for my own living expenses and not having to contribute to those of my children, not to mention all the non-essential perks that life has to offer. In effect, his wage was reduced because he was paying for everyone - his earning capacity may have been the same, but his expenses were doubled by being the total wage earner for three other human beings. I fail to see where it's considered that he would have made so much more, other than possible pension plan contributions, which can also be made by one spouse to another via spousal RRSP contributions. I didn't take a "reduced future income". My income upon entry back into the workforce increased to be on par with what it would have been had I not left, even more so by working from home and being able to write off a number of things for income tax purposes. He didn't take time off because I was more suited to houshold tasks and child rearing and, frankly, I didn't want the daily grind of office work - who does if they don't have to? I viewed it as a trade off. I was being compensated by being taken care of as well as our children being taken care of. Don't forget - I planned ahead as well and not only paid for half the house we owned outright, as well as had pension funds that I invested that would earn money while I wasn't employed, as well as RSP contributions and other investments accumulated during that 10 year period prior to taking the time off which increased in value and which were mine upon divorce. As I said, too many people don't plan - I do. If you don't have a plan that covers a number of areas, don't blame someone else and expect a hand out. I really see this to be no different than the way people handle most of their finances - they don't. They buy houses they are barely able to make the payments on, max their credit, have no savings, lose their jobs and then blame the economy for their financial woes, rather than blaming their own fiscal irresponsibilities. Does crap happen to a number of people that is beyond their control? Absolutely. Does a lot of crap happen because people don't take the time to think things through and plan for certain possible eventualities? Probably more so the latter than the former.


vvvvvvv A prime example of the crap that happens which is beyond a person's control.
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 679
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 12:26:02 PM
CF, I don't think "increased expenses" offsets "making more now and later, while you make nothing now and less later". I am not convinced an additional 10 years to work at your craft (whatever it is) wouldn't have improved your financial situation then, now and for the future. In any case, you can't go back and re-do it differently, so there's no certain answer.

If you don't have a plan that covers a number of areas, don't blame someone else and expect a hand out.

I wouldn't consider this a hand-out, I guess. A hand-out is when someone on the street, who has done nothing for me, nor contributed to my benefit in any way, wants me to give him/her some change. It's not a hand-out when someone who has spent 2 or 5 or 10 or more years raising and caring for my kids, taking care of my house, contributing to my well-being, and thus my financial health, might need a little bit of extra help at some point, help that I might be able to provide, more or less comfortably. Even if, in helping that person, I actually ended up giving more than they might "deserve" on a strictly quid-pro-quo basis.

In any case, we all make whatever choices we make; how fair or unfair the consequences of such choices are is probably as much perception as anything.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 680
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 12:31:00 PM
The questions posed in the OT were about reasons for getting legally married,but the thread keeps coming back to the drawbacks, potential pitfalls, financial matters and ramifications pertinent to divorce, asset division , child support and alimony.
There is only ONE reason for getting legally married.
Because you want to, and you are either unafraid of, or fully prepared for, what may happen financially if the marriage fails.
Likewise, the same would apply to having children...however, while not impossible, there is a great deal more social stigma attached to a person who divorces their children.
If you choose to marry -and have children, children are NOT a genie easily put back in the bottle. As it stands now, if you want to sever association with the other parent of your children, it may be a complex, complicated, expensive and sometimes mind-boggling process.
So DO NOT marry with any idea in your head that undoing that marriage is an easy or simple matter, if you find it doesn't suit you. EASY is about the last thing that marriage and divorce could have said about them.
There are certain legal rights/entitlements available via marriage-many have to do with medical matters, end-of-life matters, entitlement to pensions/survivor benefits,income taxes,etc.
Theoretically, if the marriage fails, particularly if there are children,(theoretically) dividing any assets gained during the marriage will not be based on "possession is 9/10ths of the law" or retaining the lions share of assets by force, threats, use of weapons...
Probably a lot of the legal perks of marriage can be obtained by appropriate documentation-and, one supposes, if strict financial records are kept and both persons make an exactly equal contribution, making sure that each individual of the couple fully funds their OWN life and no monies are mingled or spend jointly, a cohabiting couple or even a married couple should be able to exit the relationship taking exactly what they brought in.
So, come to think of it, there are not compelling legal, practical, social, financial, reasons to get married. The reasons for getting married have more to do with love, logistics, emotions, and spiritual matters, despite what all the alarmists are shrieking at you.
Cindy O
 UnixGrand
Joined: 5/9/2011
Msg: 681
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 12:40:24 PM
Now tell me why someone with a masters degree would need that kind of support?


Laziness, and a user.


I watched/listened to the above video, but only found it somewhat funny....but also sad to a huge degree. Seems as though some men would rather shoot themselves, than to help with chores around the house or provide the day to day care and control of raising children to the adult age of 18.


Darlite. I bet when you were watching the video, you thought the husband killed his wife. And actually it was the other way around. Either way people would have had something to complain about.


I'm happy to be back on my feet too


CarpeOmnia.... I am glad you made it back. You are a better human being for it. And you will be rewarded for it. One question though.... Did he have a better Lawyer than you? Or was it just fate?
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 682
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 12:44:44 PM

So, come to think of it, there are not compelling legal, practical, social, financial, reasons to get married. The reasons for getting married have more to do with love, logistics, emotions, and spiritual matters, despite what all the alarmists are shrieking at you.

Which is pretty much what I stated a long time ago. Gotta love the sidetracks a thread takes, though (especially when done without animosity) - otherwise this one would have been done at page...I dunno...maybe 5?...lol
 UnixGrand
Joined: 5/9/2011
Msg: 683
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 5:06:09 PM
When his Legal Aid lawyer had enough of him not co-operating and not providing any supporting documents...she quit on him.



You know what's funny..... LAWYERS. Here's a female attorney who knows that he is probably BS'ing through his teeth. That's why the Legal game is the biggest insult to man, and woman kind. Let's put it this way..... I would be proud to know that I made it through the dark, and came forth on top. When I got divorced.... I didn't even want to put up a fight. My stepsons were still living at home, and I was not going to rip the house right out from underneath them. I walked out with the clothes on my back, my car, and $20K in the bank. She ended up with the $600K house, all the furniture, and everything else we collected together through out the years being married. I figured it this way... If I was going to contest this, the lawyers would have taken a boat load of money from us. This way we both retained something. In the past ten years I have made it all back, and more.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 684
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 5:15:33 PM
Y'know
There was a time when "reading the law" was an honored profession.

My stepsons were still living at home, and I was not going to rip the house right out from underneath them.

That you could make this decision for children that weren't even your own, puts some of the men here crying and whining and worrying about shielding every little penny,to shame.
Nothing wrong with looking out for your own interests, but sometimes its the person who looks at the bigger picture, and decides to be the bigger person, comes out way ahead in the things that REALLY matter.
Cindy O
 errant71
Joined: 4/4/2009
Msg: 685
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 6:31:22 PM
I’m not sure I find protecting financial assets shameful. My definition of shameful behavior would lean more toward the alienation of a parent over those financial assets. A child needs more than financial assets. A child needs the emotional support and caring of both parents … it’s the ultimate asset.

I have absolutely no issue with marriage. That said, I do have an issue with the dissolution of a marriage with children in which those children lose their greatest asset, the loving support of a mother and a father. In my view, except in poverty situations, a child can afford to lose more in financial assets that that child can afford to lose in emotional assets. Sometimes both a mother and a father need to make sacrifices.
 Sportsfreak89
Joined: 12/28/2010
Msg: 686
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 9:07:26 PM
Though I plan to NEVER EVER be a married man or father myself (reasons are listed on my page) here are reasons why I think people do it:


1. Societal pressure. Society has created a "social clock" that says they have to and when they have to also. Plus society seems to be misled to believe that love can only be shown extrinisically through expensive yet worthless circles of painted metal and with dramatic phrases and empty promises and cannot be shown in any other fashion. Society believes that people should have to sacrifice who they are and that men have to throw their treasures away to make room for the woman's stuff. Like one man once told me: "what's yours is hers and what's hers is hers."
2. Money is always a big thing. Women love to use a man's money (except for my girlfriend thankfully).
3. Religion. Religious figures get upset when lives aren't created and claim that those who don't marry go to hell (even though pretty much all of us do anyway if such a place even exists). Some people will be fooled by what these schmucks say too sadly.
4. There are those who want to be like everyone else and live everyone else's lives.
5. The couple has so much fun together they start to believe that being together more often will only be more fun...but most couples are finding now that the passion in their relationship starts to fade as now they become bored with each other always being there and how much they miss the diversification of their activities as well as good friends they ended up having to give up in order to be married.

I'm sure everyone has their reasons and maybe it's not a bad thing for everyone. I am not an expert and there's a chance some of these reasons are not why people get married. Regardless of why they make this silly mistake, it's their choice and if they wish to give up their freedom and everything that made them happy when they were young or give up good friends because their spouse doesn't want them to see those good friends because of their gender well then that's their decision and any decisions regarding one's choice to be married or not should be respected.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 687
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/23/2011 9:51:49 PM

I’m not sure I find protecting financial assets shameful.

I don't think anyone has said it was shameful.Depending on the nature of the assets, a pre-nup or at least some diligent research/professional advice is perfectly appropriate. I think in some cases,thought there tends to be a degree of over-reaction.
Assets that one has prior to marriage are pre-marital,not marital,and theoretically not subject to asset division. There may be situations where gains realized from the during the marital period might be considered a marital asset,and that GAIN subject to division. But the scenario of a person owning a store or a business PRIOR to marriage and then losing half of the entire asset-not just half of the GAIN- in a divorce settlement, is not necessarily going to happen. What we seem to be hearing from a few people is a paranoia about documentation , shielding ,keeping completely separate finances within the marriage-to the point where much of the intent of marriage( to endeavor TOGETHER for happiness and prosperity) would be obliterated! I guess my feeling is, if one has that much FEAR-perhaps they should seriously consider permanent singlehood. Again, if there is so much accounting, documenting, lawyering, that the intent of marriage( mutual endeavor for mutual prosperity and happiness) becomes lost, if the whole thing evolves into an exercise in accounting-if forward progress towards common marital goals,can never be achieved because there might be a mingling of finances, or one could afford half of something and the other couldn't, why get married or even co-habit? Better to maintain separate lives and just date/hang out!
Nothing wrong with protecting assets previously acquired, clarifying matters of inheritance if there are children from prior marriages, but if it's all done to a degree that serves to CRIPPLE the marriage, then why even GET married. Want to be sure nobody else gets any of your stuff?
Stay single.
Cindy O
 happybunny8
Joined: 4/16/2010
Msg: 688
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/24/2011 10:29:51 AM

I don’t know where some of the men posting here get the idea that taking care of children is a piece of cake


I think some of it has to do with the fact that the women who do put forth a great amount of effort (work, child rearing) and don't sit around on their butts going to the spa, never say anything or complain.

Or perhaps, as many of us did back then, we took what our moms did at home for granted and men don't often have to think about being a stay at home Dad in reality. Whereas my original plan was to be a stay at home mom and everything I knew about it was based on what I viewed watching my mom. So I knew it wasn't a sit on your azz all day "job". My mom always had things to do!

Of course, after experiencing a 9 year stretch at a stressful job, I think I would prefer taking care of my kids. I would definitely get more satisfaction and less bad stress from doing that.

I understand both sides as I have lived with kids almost all my adult life and have seen the "work" it entails if you are doing it right. I've always worked all my life. Some folks only see one side. Not too many people have lived with children (and been really actively involved in hanging out with them) for +20 years. Thus, they don't get it and may never get it.

I'm sorry to say, but sometimes I see women posting on facebook like every 5 minutes. I wonder what else they could be doing with that time. My mom never had facebook or spa days.

With the internet resources today, there are tons of courses to take online - it's easier than ever!


My stepsons were still living at home, and I was not going to rip the house right out from underneath them


That's how my brother went about it. He was able to keep his house because I agreed to move in with him so that the kids could keep as much stability in their lives as possible (their babysitter was right down the road as well). Moving and a new babysitter on top of mommy leaving wasn't something my bro wanted to put his kids through.

I don't think he gave a whit about his assets in terms of "himself" at the time. His main concern still remains his family.
 QuebecPrincess2
Joined: 1/18/2011
Msg: 689
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/24/2011 11:08:53 AM
jrichardson@zerochaos.com


sometimes it helps for tax purposes
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 690
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/24/2011 2:57:33 PM

Assets that one has prior to marriage are pre-marital,not marital,and theoretically not subject to asset division. There may be situations where gains realized from the during the marital period might be considered a marital asset,and that GAIN subject to division. But the scenario of a person owning a store or a business PRIOR to marriage and then losing half of the entire asset-not just half of the GAIN- in a divorce settlement, is not necessarily going to happen.


Happens all the time. Any assets acquired before marriage if even a small amount is used for marital purposes can then be up for grabs in a divorce.


Thus, generally whenever a person owns an asset before getting married, then this asset is generally excluded from equitable distribution.

However, there are exceptions to every general rule. Lawyers would not make any money in divorce court if there were no legal exceptions to litigate over. The major exception occurs when assets are purchased in contemplation of marriage. If a person uses funds to purchase a home in her or her name, and if the home is then used as the marital home, then some courts could deem the purchase to have been made in "contemplation of marriage".Thus, this once excludable asset could be considered to have been transformed into a marital asset.



What we seem to be hearing from a few people is a paranoia about documentation , shielding ,keeping completely separate finances within the marriage-to the point where much of the intent of marriage( to endeavor TOGETHER for happiness and prosperity) would be obliterated!


Why would it be obliterated? They both had separate assets and accounts before they met. Why must there be any commingling of finances?


I guess my feeling is, if one has that much FEAR-perhaps they should seriously consider permanent singlehood. Again, if there is so much accounting, documenting, lawyering, that the intent of marriage( mutual endeavor for mutual prosperity and happiness) becomes lost,


Yet you seem fine with the same"accounting, documenting, lawyering" during a divorce. Why not get it out of the way to start with when the cost of agreeing is much less for each party?


Nothing wrong with protecting assets previously acquired, clarifying matters of inheritance if there are children from prior marriages, but if it's all done to a degree that serves to CRIPPLE the marriage, then why even GET married. Want to be sure nobody else gets any of your stuff?
Stay single.


Why does it have to "cripple" the marriage? If both agree on the terms and both have legal representation which would have to happen for a prenup to be valid.
They know exactly going in what is and is not martial assets. They can freely agree or disagree to the terms.

Unlike normal divorce that forces a split with a person that is all to often out for blood at that point.

It is hard to see a good reason to marry at this point in my life anyone that is over 40 is most likely no planning on kids. They probably have their kids self supportive by this time in life.

They have those kids to think about. For most people their house and retirement are where most of their assets are they plan on leaving their kids.

Yet even if held before the marriage these assets are normally considered marital assets.


Bank accounts
Household furniture, artwork, household furnishings and collectible items
Retirement Plans, profit sharing, stocks and bonds
Vehicles such as cars and boats
Life Insurance and annuities


And as was pointed out above if a house was bought by just one of the partners anytime close to the marriage it is considered a shared asset.

This is also true in a case where a person owns one house before marriage and sells it during marriage and buys another.
Even though their spouse had no hand what so ever in making the money that paid for the first house the one bought with those same funds are now 50% theirs.

Nothing equatable about that is there?
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 691
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/24/2011 9:38:49 PM
Happened across this little gem..


The divorce rate among boomers has jumped recently and that number is only expected to climb. Statistics from the National Center for Family & Marriage Research at Bowling Green State University show that despite the overall divorce rate in the U.S. dropping over the last 20 years, the divorce rate among people age 50 and over has doubled.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/06/23/why-so-many-baby-boomers-are-getting-divorced/#ixzz1QFvMoKJ0

I don't recall the article stating that this was 2nd marriages...but considering that 2nd and 3rd marriages have a higher failure rate, and add in this latest tidbit of info about the divorce rate dropping-except for the 50+ crowd,where it has doubled,I would be inclined to suggest that marriage should be something a mature couple considers VERY carefully, particularly if it would be a 2nd or higher marriage.

Also,noticed recently on one of these "free legal advice forums" a discussion of protecting assets from being taken in a "spend-down" necessary to qualify a spouse in need of nursing home or medically based "assisted living, for MedicAid. MEDICARE does not pay for long-term care. Particularly in the case of mature adults in a 2nd(or more) marriage,apparently attorneys are advising couples faced with one of them going into a long-term care facility, to get a divorce so that the healthier(relatively speaking) spouse does not have their hard earned assets eaten up by long-term care costs. This seems to be an area of legal uncertainty as far as a pre-nup shielding pre- or non-marital assets from long-term care costs.
Just another point to ponder,regarding marriage in the 45+ crowd...seems to me a little bit overly convoluted, to go to the effort and expense of pre-nups,only to end up having to divorce to protect assets from long-term care costs.
Granted, there is longterm care insurance-but that can be expensive, and what that particular branch of the insurance industry might choose to define as "pre-existing condition"-or "exclusionary" conditions,LTC insurance may not be accessible to everyone.
Just something else to be considered when a 45+ couple considers marriage. If it's going to require strict separation of finances, massive prenuptial agreements, and STILL might have to either end in divorce,else see one's hard-earned assets being sucked into the long-term care cost black hole,maybe marriage should be" the road not taken"?
Despite all that...today a co-volunteer at one of my volunteer causes was telling me about being the matron of honor in her sisters' wedding last week. In the next breath she told me about her newest great-great-grandchild. Yes- thats right...2xgrandchild. This recent matron of honor is 92. Her sister, the bride, is 77. ( it is not a first marriage, both the bride and bridegroom were widowed persons)
So,for good or ill, marriages ARE still happening!
Cindy O
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 692
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 6/25/2011 6:09:47 PM


Just another point to ponder,regarding marriage in the 45+ crowd...seems to me a little bit overly convoluted, to go to the effort and expense of pre-nups,only to end up having to divorce to protect assets from long-term care costs.


There are ways of protecting against this as well. Talk to your attorney and they can fill you in I could elaborate but I don't want to make it "all about me!"
 x_file
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 693
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 7/23/2011 1:02:18 PM

Super. That’s what I’m interested in - the nature of commitment.


Good, then look inside you. I'm sure with little refection on your life this far, you will find examples of commitment which you can focus on, and extract the understanding you seek.



Nobody gets promoted, a pay raise, or pension income accumulated while they are off work for any reason.


Maybe so.

What you are missing is

1) Even if you work, it doesn't mean you will get promoted, or get a pay raise. Those things are not automatic.

2) Many companies hire people on contract... which either has predetermined raises, or no raises at all.

3) Some jobs offer NO promotions or pay raise. Minimum wage jobs in particular usually remain at minimum wage regardless of how long one has been at the job.



If one doesn't work for one, two, three or ten years, for whatever reason, they've permanently lost whatever gains they might have made in that time


Financial gains? May be, may be not.

1) If you are off work for more than a year, I can only conclude you aren't that concerned about your financial security.

2) Time off work does not have to equate to permanent lost. For example, a person can educate them self during this off-work period by saving for their education and planning ahead of time. As a result, such a person can seek a job that now pays 1.5x or 2x more than their last job and make the money they lost within 2-3 years, and after profit from their "time off".

There is no denying that if a person is really concerned about their career, or financial security, kid or no kids, they will find a way to handle both.

There is no written rule that states that "kids=time off work=lost of gains". I wager that for 90% of the cases where "kids=time off work=lost of gains" is true, the person was willingly lazy.

To put in another terms, rather than sacrificing them self, or pushing them self to have both, kids, and a carrier, a person simply decided it is easier to simply just have the kids, and sacrifice their carrier - which is a personal choice. And so, for this choice, no such a person should be compensated.



Their future earnings are negatively impacted, and can never be made up.


Like I said above.



I, personally, think it's rather ridiculous...


So do I.



... but apparently the government doesn't think it's "bullshit" that periods of unemployment have a negative affect on one's future earnings and believe it's appropriate to have the higher earning partner help the lesser-earning partner.


Compassion on the part of the government at the expense of the higher earner. How nice of them!

I'm sure the goverment "thinks" it is a good idea for someone else to pay so it doesn't come out of their pocket. Poor argument if you ask me.



Two guys in my office have taken a year off; one to go back to school and the other to support his wife who had to serve an internship in another city; one woman is off on maternity leave. All three are coming back to the company, but in the year they've been gone, they've lost company contributions to the company pension plan, their government pension plan contributions, wage increases, profit sharing bonus (which many put into the RRSP) and possible advancement within the company. Also, new software and procedures have been implemented while they've been gone; there is no way any of them could be prepared for that, so there again they are behind the rest of the pack in terms of knowledge, experience and positioning for advancement and wage increase within our company.


Suppose it is absolutely true.

You have shown lost. That's it! Now you have to show why they should be compensated. Also you have to show why they should be compensated by the higher earner.



I don't know if the woman you described got a degree in her field of work or changed careers entirely, but who's to say she wouldn't have been farther ahead financially and career wise if she hadn't paused to take care of the kids that both she and her husband both wanted (presumably).


Who is to say she wouldn't get hit by a bus one day going to work? Or who is to say he wouldn't get sick for year? If he gets sick, and then seeks a divorce, she being the higher earner should compensate him?

The decision to stay home was hers. She was working full time previously, and didn't have enough spare time to concentrate on her second degree. She saw having a kid as an opportunity to stay home, which would also allow her the spare time she was looking for. Put it this way, she had a kid, in order to get her second degree.

She could have, of course, taken a part time job, and get her second degree and skip the kid all together. But she wanted a kid, and a kid she got.



If the working parent benefits from having the children, as well as financially and career-wise, from the non-working parents career sacrifice (large or small), why shouldn't that be taken into consideration if the marriage ends?


Because it should be taken into consideration and agreed up on when the marriage starts, not when the marriage ends.

Otherwise it is like a hidden tax.

Also what you seem to ignore is that even without children, the courts award the non-working spouse in a marriage.

More importantly, if the non-working parent wasn't married and was single - perhaps he/she decided to adopt, etc.., such a person never gets paid or compensated for any lost or sacrifice. This is true for a non-working parent who's spouse has just died. Somehow marriage,is the exception. Somehow the marriage license is a license for financial compensation.



If some here would actually recognize that, instead of miscomprehending that it is a device for women to get compensated for having children SHE wanted,or a means for a woman to avoid working for a living,it would make sense.


I think the incomprehension is equal if not worse on your part.

I know, without a doubt, that marriage cannot justify 50/50 split. There is only ONE justification that can, and marriage is not it.

I don't care if a woman marries in order to take advantage of the divorce laws, and I don't care of a woman marries for love and doesn't take a penny from a man. My criticism of marriage would still be the same. Even if every woman on Earth was a saint, and every relationship lasted forever, I would still point out that marriage allows for legal theft.



Both adults also lose out when divorce happens, even if everybody leaves with what they came in with, their income was at par, there are no children, and whatever they gained mutually is split 50/50.


No!

Case in point: A woman gets divorced from an abusive alcoholic the day he begins abuse or starts his alcoholic career. She wins. Go debate that.



There is only ONE reason for getting legally married.
Because you want to, and you are either unafraid of, or fully prepared for, what may happen financially if the marriage fails.


Well, if that is really the reason a person gives them self for getting married, namely, "Because I want to", then I will certain point out the stupid behind their choice. Why? Because I want to! If it is a good justification for marriage, well, f*ck, it is even a better justification for criticism on my part.



So, come to think of it, there are not compelling legal, practical, social, financial, reasons to get married.


No kidding.



That you could make this decision for children that weren't even your own, puts some of the men here crying and whining and worrying about shielding every little penny,to shame.


It also puts to shame, three times more, the women who desire to squeeze out of a man every little penny, to take him to the cleaners.
 UnixGrand
Joined: 5/9/2011
Msg: 694
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 7/25/2011 1:02:37 PM
Now that Gay marriage is now legal in NY, and becoming legal in many other states..... It would be interesting to see the divorce statistics 10 years from now. Will the divorce rates stay the same for heterosexuals, or will they be higher for gay divorcees?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 695
view profile
History
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 7/25/2011 7:32:18 PM
For sure. Homosexuals have fought so long & hard for the right to "enjoy" what we spend so much time denigrating. The grass is always greener, for sure.
 x_file
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 696
What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?
Posted: 7/28/2011 4:44:28 AM


If you don’t care to discuss the point than just say so.


I don't care discussing it with you.
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > What Are The Reasons For Getting Legally Married?